Friday, November 6, 2015

'I hope for success. The rest is in the hands of the gods.'

Printed (edited) version appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, Friday November 6, 2015, Pp's.#D1&3.
Online version from the National Post:

‘We are all on the front lines’: Canadian reportedly killed fighting ISIL wrote essay about why he went to war


John Gallagher, who has reportedly been killed by a suicide bomber, was one of about a dozen Canadians to have volunteered to fight alongside Kurdish forces battling.
John Gallagher, who has reportedly been killed by a suicide bomber, was one of about a dozen Canadians to have volunteered to fight alongside Kurdish forces battling.


John Robert Gallagher was a Canadian who volunteered with the Kurdish forces in northern Syria to fight ISIL. He was reportedly killed in a suicide bombing Wednesday. This is an unedited essay may contain content objectionable to some readers but is presented in its entirety to fully explain his reasons for going to war.


First, let me get the obvious out of the way: I do not expect anyone to agree that it is a wise course of action to volunteer to fight against ISIS. Would-be terrorists from all over the world, including Canada, (including some I probably went to school with,) are flooding into the Middle East by the thousands. They’ve got the numbers and the weapons to win this war, so to go stand on the other side of the battlefield is objectively insane.

I also respect the viewpoint that the last thing any westerners ought to do is get involved in another Middle Eastern conflict. We’ve already done tremendous damage to the region; the rise of ISIS is a direct result of foreign policy blunders by the last two Presidents (at least!). If you think that for the good of the region we should all sit this one out, I can understand that. But I can’t agree.
I’m prepared to give my life in the cause of averting the disaster we are stumbling towards as a civilization
The cause of a free and independent Kurdistan is important enough to be worth fighting for all on its own. The Kurdish people are the largest ethnicity in the world without a country of their own, and have suffered enormously under the boot-heel of regional powers. Now they are under threat from another genocidal foe, yet they have not given themselves over to the joint manias of religious fanaticism and suicide murder. This should be enough reason for the West to give them whatever support they need in such a time of crisis. But there is an even better reason.

For decades now, we have been at war. This war has been unacknowledged by our leaders, but enthusiastically proclaimed by our enemies. This war has produced casualties on every continent, in nearly every nation on earth. It has had periods of intense fighting, followed by long stretches of rearming and regrouping, but it has never ended. It is not even close to being won. Someday historians will look back and marvel at how much effort we put into deceiving ourselves about the nature of this conflict, and wonder how we convinced ourselves that it was not even taking place. This war may have started in 1979, or earlier; 2001 increased the intensity of the conflict; the withdrawal from Iraq kicked off the latest phase. Like the American Civil War, World War II, and the Cold War, this war is about ideas as much as it is about armies. Slavery, fascism, and communism were all bad ideas which required costly sacrifice before they were finally destroyed. In our time, we have a new bad idea: Theocracy.

We live in a society that’s grown around a very basic philosophical principle: That the world around us can be understood using our senses and our minds. From this simple insight comes the moral revelation that all human beings are equal in this capacity, and therefore equal in dignity. This radical idea was the turning point in human history, before which all civilizations had been dominated by the idea that class hierarchies and racism were perfectly justified according to the revealed wisdom of ancient texts, and sanctified by holy men with a special relationship to some ‘divine’ power. We began to see justice as something which could be measured by its effects on living people, not as superstition.

This idea has been under threat ever since its inception, because it’s the most powerful force for human emancipation that has ever been, and so it is a deadly threat to the privileged.

It is also a threat to those who fear a world where human beings must be the judges of our own actions. Some prefer to subordinate their own morality to a doctrine they know they can never fully understand; this is more agreeable than facing the thought that we are alone in this world. This terror at our own freedom, and hatred for the mind that makes its realization inescapable, has given birth to movements that promise to give us back our comforting delusions. Communism and fascism were both answers to the problem of human freedom. These ideas were defeated. But always in the background the germ of these ideas was aggressively breeding. Theocracy isn’t just as dangerous as fascism; it’s the model of fascism, and all totalitarianisms. Communism said ‘instead of god, the Party.’ Fascism said, ‘instead of god, the Nation!’ Theocracy simply says ‘God.’

https://www.facebook.com/randy.hillier/videos/1094061557270846/

There is nothing uniquely Islamic about this trend, except that it just so happens that the most violent proponents of theocracy today happen to be Muslim. In the 1500’s, it was the Christians. By hard fighting and a brave defense of our principles, the forces of secularism managed to wrestle control of European society away from the theocrats, and we have been fighting the regressive movements that have tried to take their place ever since. The Muslim world has been dominated by theocratic politics for decades now, and that war has overflowed to engulf the rest of the world.

We are all on the front lines of this conflict, whether we know it or not. We can measure the causalities not only in the body counts of deadly terror attacks, ‘mass demonstrations,’ embassy assaults and assassinated artists; we can also measure it in the terror produced among cartoonists, satirists, publishers and booksellers, news media and educators who are being prevented from doing their necessary work of maintaining the machinery of the enlightenment. Not only have we all been threatened; in many ways we are all already casualties of this war.
Because of our beliefs, we live in the most racially inclusive, sexually liberated, and anti-imperialist society which has ever existed in human history, and to teach young people anything different is a criminal act of intellectual violence
The stance of pacifists and the appeasement left on this issue is not tolerance, but ironically, what it claims to oppose: fearmongering, and even ‘Islamophobia,’ since it betrays their utter terror of offending the sensibilities of immigrant communities and the so-called ‘community leaders’ who are presumed to give them their marching orders. Their pre-emptive apologism for barbarity betrays a deep contempt for the character of immigrant Muslims, since it presumes that they enjoy their mental oppression and prefer the moral stagnation of sharia law and the hadith to the pleasures of an open, cosmopolitan, secular society.

I have met plenty of self-described Muslims who have never even read the Qur’an, don’t care what it has to say about the role of women or the punishment for blasphemy, who don’t know or care how Muhammad treated prisoners of war, or how he dealt with dissenting poets in Mecca. That’s fine. I personally wish they would learn a bit about those last points and take more responsibility for the company they keep, but the point is that they are not an active part of the problem. Yet elements of our government are perfectly willing to accept that thuggishness is something we must automatically and un-judgmentally expect from Muslims, that it is US who must accommodate ourselves to THEM. What we need here is more historical education, not cultural sensitivity.

The war that is ongoing in the Middle East is a war against theocracy. In many ways it is a civil war, and I believe more depends on its outcome than anyone in power is prepared to face. But it is also a distant front in a civil war within Western society, since we are sending troops to fight on both sides. And here the stakes may be even greater. Our war is not just about theocracy; it is between those who still believe in the enlightenment, that self-determination is the most basic and most crucial of all human rights, that the first duty of every man in society is to defend the mechanisms by which we make ourselves free; and those who ultimately lack the capacity to believe in anything. These people have been corrupted by the masochistic fables circulated by leftists and identity politicians that tell us Western society is inherently racist, inherently sexist, and inherently imperialist, when it is Western society which pioneered the ideas that racism, sexism, and imperialism might be a problem in the first place.

Because of our beliefs, we live in the most racially inclusive, sexually liberated, and anti-imperialist society which has ever existed in human history, and to teach young people anything different is a criminal act of intellectual violence. And the crisis we face today is the direct result of this ‘progressive’ thinking: we are now under threat by those who take advantage of the masochism and apathy fostered by the left to recruit people who will take a violently affirmative ideology over nihilistic pessimism, even or especially if that means committing atrocities that would make the average ‘imperialist’ vomit. Those who contribute to this environment of moral decay and vulnerability are the useful idiots of jihad and fellow travelers of theocracy, and it is the duty of thinking persons to oppose their influence by every means at our disposal.


I was raised in a fundamentalist religious environment. If today I have any intellectual or spiritual existence worth fighting for, it is because it was impossible for the religious forces in my life to have their way and shield me from the assaults of reason and conscience. They could teach me that evolution was a lie, but they couldn’t prevent me from reading about it or prohibit the public schools from teaching it. They could tell me blasphemy was a sin, but they couldn’t prevent me from sneaking Monty Python and South Park. The mechanisms of society, in other words, gave me the tools by which I could make myself free. They saved my life. Who safeguards the social machinery now? Only an overbred political elite and intelligentsia who burble about the urgent need to never give offense. This is not only a disgraceful failure; it is a national emergency. 
Like theocracy today, fascism used to be an international movement, with fascist parties in every western country. Then World War II happened. Nazi Germany became the standard-bearer of fascism, and when it was crushed, the movement wasn’t just destroyed, it was discredited for all time. Ironically, the rise of ISIS gives us the same chance now. We have the ability to eradicate jihadism in our lifetime. The terrorists’ own playbook sees the taking and holding of territory as a necessary step to discredit Western democracy and prove that the Caliphate is a real political possibility in the 21st century. We have to prove that it is not. And like we did with Nazi Germany, we must crush it with overwhelming, unrelenting force. We have to take it while the mass graves are still fresh, while there are still survivors to give testimony to the atrocities they’ve witnessed, while the murderers are still around to be put on trial. Only by destroying ISIS without mercy can we discredit the idea, and force the would-be jihadis and fellow-travelers to give up their insane dreams of a new Mecca and join the modern world.
I’m prepared to give my life in the cause of averting the disaster we are stumbling towards as a civilization. A free Kurdistan would be good enough cause for any internationalist, but we are fortunate enough to be able to risk our necks for something more important and more righteous than anything we’ve faced in generations. With some fortitude and guts, we can purge the sickness that’s poisoning our society, and come together to defeat this ultimate evil. I’ve been fighting this battle in one way or another for my entire life. I hope for success. The rest is in the hands of the gods.

Lou Holtz nails Obama!

Best thing you will read for a while.  Lou Holtz explains this situation we are in brilliantly.  He ‘hits the nail on the head’.  

See if you don’t agree.Lou Holtz Nails It !!Chuck                                                          Johnson's                                                          photo.

The Democrats are right, there are two Americas. The America that works and the America that doesn’t. The America that contributes and the America that doesn’t. It’s not the haves and the have nots, it’s the dos and the don’ts. Some people do their duty as Americans, obey the law, support themselves, contribute to society and others don’t. That’s the divide in America .

 
It’s not about income inequality, it’s about civic irresponsibility. It’s about a political party that preaches hatred, greed and victimization in order to win elective office. It’s about a political party that loves power more than it loves its country.

That’s not invective, that’s truth, and it’s about time someone said it.

The politics of envy was on proud display a couple weeks ago when President Obama pledged the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He noted that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just. That is the rationale of thievery.

The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat. That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.

It is the electoral philosophy that is destroying America. It conceals a fundamental deviation from American values and common sense because it ends up not benefiting the people who support it, but a betrayal.

 
The Democrats have not empowered their followers, they have enslaved them in a culture of dependence and entitlement, of victim-hood and anger instead of ability and hope. The president’s premise – that you reduce income inequality by debasing the successful–seeks to deny the successful the consequences of their choices and spare the unsuccessful the consequences of their choices. Because, by and large, income variations in society are a result of different choices leading to different consequences.

Those who choose wisely and responsibly have a far greater likelihood of success, while those who choose foolishly and irresponsibly have a far greater likelihood of failure.

Success and failure usually manifest themselves in personal and family income. You choose to drop out of high school or to skip college – and you are apt to have a different outcome than someone who gets a diploma and pushes on with purposeful education.

You have your children out of wedlock and life is apt to take one course; you have them within a marriage and life is apt to take another course. Most often in life our destination is determined by the course we take.

 
My doctor, for example, makes far more than I do. There is significant income inequality between us. Our lives have had an inequality of outcome, but, our lives also have had an in equality of effort. While my doctor went to college and then devoted his young adulthood to medical school and residency, I got a job in a restaurant. He made a choice, I made a choice, and our choices led us to different outcomes. His outcome pays a lot better than mine. Does that mean he cheated and Barack Obama needs to take away his wealth? No, it means we are both free men in a free society where free choices lead to different outcomes.

 
It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy. Even if the other guy sat on his arse and did nothing. Even if the other guy made a lifetime’s worth of asinine and short sighted decisions.

 
Barack Obama and the Democrats preach equality of outcome as a right, while completely ignoring inequality of effort.

The simple Law of the Harvest – as ye sow, so shall ye reap – is sometimes applied as, “The harder you work, the more you get.”

Obama would turn that upside down. Those who achieve are to be punished as enemies of society and those who fail are to be rewarded as wards of society. Entitlement will replace effort as the key to upward mobility in American society if Barack Obama gets his way. He seeks a lowest common denominator society in which the government besieges the successful and productive to foster equality through mediocrity. He and his party speak of two Americas, and their grip on power is based on using the votes of one to sap the productivity of the other. America is not divided by the differences in our outcomes, it is divided by the differences in our efforts.

 
It is a false philosophy to say one man’s success comes about unavoidably as the result of another man’s victimization.

What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against another for his own political benefit. That’s what socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up with a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth to Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

“Life is ten percent what happens to you and ninety percent how you respond to it.”

 
Lou Holtz

Leo “Lou” Holtz (born January 6, 1937) is a retired American football coach, and active sportscaster, author, and motivational speaker.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

TPP EXPOSED AT LAST!

From HERE:

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/11/tpp-workers.jpg
tpp-workers
President Obama addresses workers (White House photo)
UNITED NATIONS – The Obama administration’s release Thursday of the more than 2,000 pages of the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, known more commonly as Obamatrade, has prompted a rash of criticism from both the political left and the right.
Critics charge the pact undermines U.S. sovereignty by establishing a secret, unaccountable TransPacific Partnership Commission with sweeping regulatory powers over 40 percent of the world’s economy while sending jobs abroad.

“This trade agreement would allow foreign corporations to challenge our health, safety and environmental protections in a foreign tribunal outside our legal system, and it would weaken those bedrock safeguards in the United States,” said Jake Schmidt, international program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “While there are some positive conservation measures, the agreement’s substantial shortcomings should lead Congress to reject it.”

Chapter 28 of the TPP agreement, titled “Dispute Settlement,” specifies that trade disputes will be adjudicated by a three-person panel in accordance with international law, including any World Trade 

Organization obligations that have been written into the various sections of the TPP agreement.

“Global Deception: The U.N.’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom” is available now in the WND Superstore.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, head of a union known for supporting Democratic Party political candidates and causes, said that from what he and his colleagues have reviewed so far, “we are deeply disappointed that our policy recommendations and those of our trade reform allies in the environmental, consumer, public health, global development and business sectors were largely ignored.”

Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, said the TPP “will continue to outsource American jobs overseas, fail to do anything about currency manipulation, and once adopted, will create an international, unelected commission with broad authority to implement and interpret the agreement without any votes of Congress.”

Under the “fast track” authority Congress granted President Obama last summer, lawmakers can only vote “yes” or “no” on TPP. Filibusters are disallowed, and no amendments to the treaty can be introduced, with a simple majority required to vote the FPP trade treaty up or down.

Should Congress fail to act during a 90-day review period, President Obama, under the fast track authority, would be free to sign the pact under his own authority.

The 12 nations comprising the TPP are the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, and New Zealand.

China has responded by creating its own 16-nation compact, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a free-trade area including India that is estimated as the world’s largest such bloc, encompassing some 3.4 billion people.

Expansive new powers to foreign businesses

Trumka said the trade deals’ investment rules “still provide expansive new legal rights and powers to foreign businesses to challenge legitimate government actions, the labor enforcement provisions are still inadequate to address the enormous challenges posed by this deal and the lack of enforceable currency rules subject to trade sanctions mean the promised new export markets may never materialize.”

Manning stressed that the regulatory and judicial powers of the commission, in Article 27.2.2 of the agreement, will be akin to rogue agencies and activist courts in the U.S. that regularly issue edicts contrary to the law passed by elected representatives.”

Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, said it appears that the TPP’s proponents “resorted to such extreme secrecy during negotiations because the text shows TPP would offshore more American jobs, lower our wages, flood us with unsafe imported food and expose our laws to attack in foreign tribunals.”

“When the administration says it used the TPP to renegotiate NAFTA, few expected that meant doubling down on the worst job-killing, wage-suppressing NAFTA terms, expanding limits on food safety and rolling back past reforms on environmental standards and access to affordable drugs,” Wallach said.

Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines program, noted many in Congress “said they would support the TPP only if, at a minimum, it included past reforms made to trade pact intellectual property rules affecting access to affordable medicines.”

“But the TPP rolls back that past progress by requiring new marketing exclusivities and patent term extensions, and provides pharmaceutical firms with new monopoly rights for biotech drugs, including many new and forthcoming cancer treatments,” Maybarduk said.

“The terms in this final TPP text will contribute to preventable suffering and death abroad, and may constrain the reforms that Congress can consider to reduce Americans’ medicine prices at home.”

‘Wish list for special interests’

Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, said, “Now that we can read the final TPP text, it’s obvious why it was kept in total secrecy for so long,”

He called the agreement “a wish list for powerful special interests and multinational corporations.”
“The Intellectual Property chapter confirms our worst fear about the TPP’s impact on our basic right to express ourselves and access information on the Internet,” he said. “If U.S. Congress signs this agreement despite its blatant corruption, they’ll be signing a death warrant for the open Internet and putting the future of free speech in peril.”

Judit Rius Sanjuan, U.S. manager and legal policy adviser for the Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) Access Campaign, said her non-profit “remains gravely concerned about the effects that the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal will have on access to affordable medicines for millions of people, if it is enacted.”

“Today’s official release of the agreed TPP text confirms that the deal will further delay price-lowering generic competition by extending and strengthening monopoly market protections for
pharmaceutical companies,” Sanjuan emphasized.

“At a time when the high price of life-saving medicines and vaccines is increasingly recognized as a barrier to effective medical care, it is very concerning to see that the U.S. government and pharmaceutical companies have succeeded in locking in rules that will keep medicine prices high for longer and limit the tools that governments and civil society have to try to increase generic competition.”

Dispute panel

The pact’s three-person dispute panel is to be composed of one panelist selected by the complaining party and one by the responding party. The third is chosen by mutual consent, or failing mutual consent, by the two initial panelists.

The TPP also incorporates many provisions of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure, ISDS, a common provision in bi-lateral and multi-lateral international investment agreements and treaties that allows investors to sue national governments over treaty violations.

The TPP agreement is estimated to double to 18,000 the number of foreign corporations that could be authorized by TPP to utilize ISDS procedures to challenge U.S. laws and regulations in favor of international trade rules and WTO regulations. It allows a demand of compensation for damages in a wide range of business areas affected by TPP rules and regulations, including disputes over intellectual property and patent rights, challenges over financial service regulations and protections such as safety inspections extended to food and medicine sold in the United States.

While ISDS provisions have existed in international trade agreements since the 1960s, just 50 known ISDS cases were launched through the 1990s. Case volume has increased dramatically in recent years, with 50 known ISDS cases being launched in each of the last three years. Recent ISDS cases have targeted tobacco, climate, financial stability, mining, medicine, education, pollution, water, labor, toxins and development policies, according to a trade group opposing the TPP.

ISDS tribunals have ordered more than $3.6 billion in taxpayer compensation to foreign firms to date. More than $34 billion in ISDS claims are pending under U.S. trade pacts, with disputes contesting U.S. policy in environmental regulation, energy, financial regulation, public health, land use and transportation policies.

Alan Morrison, the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service at George Washington University Law School, in an article published in The Atlantic in June, proposed a scenario of the type of case the TPP is anticipated to allow by expanding ISDS procedures.
Morrison postulated that should the TPP become established U.S. law, a Vietnamese company that owns 15 restaurants in San Francisco could file a lawsuit charging that a minimum wage increase authorized by the mayor of San Francisco was a violation of the “investor protection” provisions of TPP. It would authorize the Vietnamese corporation to bring an ISDS case under TPP before a three-person arbitration tribunal, with the U.S. government the only defendant and the city of San Francisco participating only if the U.S. allows it.

Morrison further points out that under ISDS, the arbitrators are typically lawyers who specialize in international trade and investment, for whom serving as arbitrators is the only one source of income. They are paid by the hour and allowed to rotate between arbitrating cases and representing foreign investors and corporations suing governments in the United States.

Back door for ‘climate change’ regulations

While the TPP is not intended to be a “climate change” treaty imposing carbon surcharges, it introduces environmental regulations in Article 20.15, titled “Transition to a Low Emissions and Resilient Economy.”

The first paragraph states “transition to a low emissions economy requires collective action.”
The pact acknowledges “each Party’s actions to transition to a low emissions economy should reflect domestic circumstances and capabilities” but says the members “shall cooperate to address matters of joint or common interest.”

“Areas of cooperation may include, but are not limited to: energy efficiency; development of cost-effective, low-emissions technologies and alternative, clean and renewable energy sources; sustainable transport and sustainable urban infrastructure development; addressing deforestation and forest degradation; emissions monitoring; market and non-market mechanisms; low-emissions, resilient development and sharing of information and experiences in addressing this issue. Further, the Parties shall, as appropriate, engage in cooperative and capacity-building activities related to transitioning to a low emissions economy.”

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Entitled Much? Journo-Dean's Racism Charge Explodes

From HERE:

Lady Accuses Police Officers Of Stopping Her For “Walking While Black”… Then This Video Shows Up


Dorothy Bland is the dean of the school of journalism at the University of North Texas. An African American, Bland also became a recent viral phenomenon when she accused white police officers of detaining her for “walking while black.”

One problem: Ms. Bland seems to have forgotten that police cars are equipped with dash cams. After she wrote an op-ed for the Dallas Morning News, police decided to release the video, which showed she was stopped for a definite reason.

Flashing lights and sirens from a police vehicle interrupted a routine Saturday morning walk in my golf-course community in Corinth,” Bland wrote in the Wednesday piece.“Like most African Americans, I am familiar with the phrase ‘driving while black,’ but was I really being stopped for walking on the street in my own neighborhood?"Bland said she was terrified and that the police intimidated her.

“Knowing that the police officers are typically armed with guns and are a lot bigger than my 5 feet, 4 inches, I had no interest in my life’s story playing out like Trayvon Martin’s death,” Bland added. “I stopped and asked the two officers if there was a problem; I don’t remember getting a decent answer before one of the officers asked me where I lived and for identification.
“Although I am not related to Sandra Bland, I thought about her, Freddie Gray and the dozens of others who have died while in police custody.”
However, shortly after she published her piece, Corinth Police Chief Debra Walthall submitted a rebuttal, as well as the dash cam video from the stop.

“My officers, a field training officer and his recruit, observed Ms. Bland walking in the roadway wearing earbuds and unaware that there was a pickup truck directly behind her that had to almost come to a complete stop to avoid hitting her,” Walthall wrote.

“The driver of the truck looked at the officers as they passed and held his hands in the air, which implied ‘aren’t you going to do something about this?’ The officers turned around and drove behind Ms. Bland.

“They activated their in-car video camera, which shows her again walking in the roadway impeding traffic. They activated their emergency lights — no siren was ever sounded — they exited their patrol vehicle and contacted Ms. Bland.”

Yes, the only reason Dorothy Bland was pulled over by police was the fact that she was acting as an entitled nuisance, holding up traffic so that she could walk wherever she wanted to.
And, as it turns out, they apparently made it plain why she was stopped.
“They immediately advised Ms. Bland about the pickup truck and the fact that it was safer for her to walk against traffic so she could see the cars and jump out of the way if necessary. The interaction between Ms. Bland and the officers was very cordial and brief,” Whitehall wrote.
“I am surprised by her comments as this was not a confrontational encounter but a display of professionalism and genuine concern for her safety.”

The video seems to show the same thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh_OvluMqxI

Friday, October 30, 2015

OBAMA DESTROYS EUROPE!


From HERE:


Strategic Engineered Migration as Weapon of War


After reading the title, you may think it is describing the phenomenon that Europe has recently been facing: the hundreds of thousands of refugees, both victims of the hardships of civil wars and opportunists, who are invading the Balkans by land and by sea and then making their way further, trying to reach richer countries like Germany, France and Scandinavia by any means possible.

It would seem that this stream of refugees has objective reasons: armed conflicts and wars have been going on in Libya, Syria and Iraq for many years, while the situation is also turbulent in Palestine and Afghanistan. In Tunisia and Egypt, meanwhile, both of which experienced the Arab Spring, the situation also leaves much to be desired. Hardly anybody is taking notice of Bahrain, where opposition protests have been brutally suppressed for years, while in Yemen, air strikes are even being carried out on wedding processions. The location of these two states is not very convenient, however – there is simply nowhere to flee. There is also another important detail: camps are being built for Muslim refugees in Saudi Arabia, but nobody is going there for some reason. As a last resort, they stay in Jordan and Turkey.

Is there also some general reason for their frantic desire to flee so far from their homeland? Wealthy relatives who have already settled in the European Union, perhaps? Or stories about welfare benefits on which they will be able to live comfortably? After all, to make such a journey they have to pay handsomely for the services of smugglers. According to some reports, these smugglers take between $4,000 and $10,000 to transport a single refugee from Syria or Libya to Europe. Even if this person has wealthy relatives abroad, receiving money via bank transfer is impossible in war-torn Syria. Organising transportation on credit clearly involves certain guarantees, especially considering that the boats often sink in the Mediterranean.

Who is providing guarantees that encourage hundreds of thousands of people to rush from other continents to Europe and why?

0_935bd_41cdbe3e_L
Researchers have discovered a very interesting fact related to the use of social networking sites. It has come to light that calls on Twitter for refugees to travel to Germany have mostly come from the US. The time spent practising in other countries has not been in vain – from Iran during the 2009 presidential elections to Egypt and Tunisia, where the role played by social networking sites in mobilising the population was considerable.

What we are seeing now is the practical implementation of theoretical calculations of a strategic nature. Such strategies have been under development for a long time. One of them is a study by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University that bears the name “Strategic Engineered Migration as a Weapon of War“, which the author also uses for the title of this article. The study was first published in 2008 in the Civil Wars journal. Using a combination of statistical data and case study analysis, the author of the work, Kelly Greenhill, provides answers to the following questions: can refugees be a specific type of weapon, can this weapon only be used in wartime or in peacetime as well, and just how successful can its exploitation be? On the whole, Greenhill answers these questions in the affirmative.

In fact, researchers at the Belfer Center, along with researchers from other departments at Harvard University, have been working on designing strategies for conflict management in the context of broader foreign policy issues for many years. The director of the Belfer Center, Graham Allison, was an assistant secretary of defence in the Clinton administration. As well as this, the Center also funds the research of a special task force devoted to Russia.

The US is only pretending to sympathise with Europe, which is being hit hard by the migratory wave. In a recent article by Richard Haass, president of the influential globalist organisation Council on Foreign Relations that deals with European issues, the use of the word “managing” with regard to the migration crisis in the European Union was no accident. Savouring the problems being faced by Europe as a result of the influx of refugees, Haass notes that the US has both an obligation to help the European Union and strategic interests with regard to Germany and Europe as a whole. Despite this “obligation to help”, however, there has been no help at all from the US either in controlling the illegal infiltration of European countries or in terms of the temporary settlement of refugees.

There is also another interesting fact. On 15 September, Barack Obama signed an executive order on the use of behavioural science techniques in public administration. The most recent branch of behaviourism, known as “Nudge”, is nothing more than the latest way to manipulate people. The hand of Cass Sunstein, who previously worked at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration, can clearly be seen here. Along with a British colleague, he co-authored the book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness, in which psychological manipulation techniques in the context of everyday life are hidden behind fine words. (Incidentally, Sunstein’s wife is Samantha Power, United States Ambassador to the UN.) There is no doubt that the ‘nudge’ technique will be used far beyond the borders of the US.

The most effective weapon, however, both metaphorically and literally, may be those migrants capable of setting up a small guerrilla group to carry out subversive terrorist acts on the new territory. It is rather interesting that the US is not just playing host to the ones who seem the most ‘promising’ for this, but is also granting them refugee and resident status as well as the official protection of the US government.

As far as one can judge from a recently leaked internal document, a special report to US Congress for the 2014 financial year on the issue of migration prepared by the US Department of Homeland Security states that in 2014, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services applied 1,519 exemptions to individual applicants granted refugee status, resident status, and the official protection of the US government. And the most interesting thing is that in one way or another, all of these people have links with terrorist groups and extensive experience of subversive activities.

The list includes old allies of Washington from among Cuban exiles, Kosovo Liberation Army militants who for some reason cannot live well in their own artificially created state, and many other covert and overt allies of the US. There are members of the Nationalist Republican Alliance from Salvador, most likely those who shot political opponents during the Cold War and are now hiding from justice. There are fighters from the Democratic Movement for the Liberation of Eritrean Kunama – ethno-separatists who are opposed to the Eritrean government. There is the Tigray People’s Liberation Front from Ethiopia and the Oromo Liberation Front from the same country.

The list also includes activists from the Burmese Chin National Front and its military wing, the Chin National Army, which are members of the so-called Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO). Members of the Karen National Union, including militants of the Karen National Liberation Army (an ethnic group living in Burma and Thailand) also received a quota to live in the US on the spot.

Refugee status was given to 49 former Iraqi citizens from the Iraqi Democratic Party, the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. The list of “1,519 exemptions” also includes members of other organisations that have devoted many years to armed conflicts.

One can only speculate on the kind of future wars the US has in mind if it is planning to use such specific migrants as a weapon.



Source: Leonid Savin, Strategic Culture Foundation, 26 October 2015 

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Dear Martians

This is by Gavin McInnes, over at Taki’s Magazine – as Fat Tony sez: “It Is Funny, Because It Is True!”




Last week, NASA confirmed that there is water on Mars. This could be some kind of cross-promotional hullabaloo for the movie The Martian, which came out this week, or it could mean there’s life on Mars. If it’s the latter, it behooves us to provide a welcome letter for Martians to get acquainted with our planet.

Greetings,

Welcome to America. We are members of a cultural group called “The West” and it’s generally understood the West is the best. America is known as the best of the best. We’re the ones who sent you the signal and it’s likely we’re the ones you’d most like to deal with from here on out. We’ve been sending out signals for a long time so we’re going to assume you’re at least partly familiar with our culture up until the end of the 20th century. There have been some drastic changes since then, however, and we will try to make them clear.

Virtually every industry of note in this country is still run by white males. These are the guys who sent you the message, for example. However, this group has fallen out of favor recently and is now called the patriarchy (the messages we sent you are now considered sexist and we’ve hired a woman to make sure we don’t mess up your planet). The guys who made us the best of the best are now considered the worst, and to facilitate this message, a massive information campaign has arisen that derides truth, logic, science, and math. In today’s America, up is down and right is wrong.

“Muslim kids wear NASA shirts now because NASA is no longer about the guys who sent you the signal. It’s about Muslim pride. I know, it’s weird.”

Three of the most revered women in the country right now, Caitlyn Jenner, Laverne Cox, and Janet Mock, are men. Gender is no longer a thing. We reward anyone who promotes this idea with, well, awards. Any show or movie that even alludes to transanything is showered with presents and all you have to do to win any competition is grow a beard and put on a dress. Ivy League schools have replaced the pronouns “he” and “she” with “ze,” “hir,” and “hirs” because “they literally don’t have any information” (oh, and “literally” doesn’t mean “literally” anymore—it means “not literally”). When doctors try to provide information and point out that gender dysphoria is a mental illness, they are seen as boring old fuddy-duddies. To quote a man who cut off his penis and balls, “It’s mostly the medical community who sees the sexes as male or female.” It’s now reasonable for little boys to take female hormones. They also may take hormone blockers that postpone puberty so their sex change will go smoother even though the suicide rate for post-op transsexuals is still very bad. The definition of child abuse keeps changing and if you’re not down with pedophiles, you’re a “monster.” Refusing to vaccinate your child is not child abuse and third-trimester abortions are nothing compared with a doctor who shot a lion.

When physicians spew hate facts such as it’s much harder to have a baby after 35 and nearly impossible after 40, they’re accused of sexism. About half a million Americans die of obesity every year but to be fat is to be healthy and to be fit is to starve yourself. To notice someone is fat is to hate women. If we want to know how men and women should properly interact, we ask a woman who is twice divorced by 30 and claims to be an “aspiring vegetarian.”

Race is also over. A prominent member of the NAACP was a white woman who put brown cream on her face and curled her hair. She’s transracial so she can do blackface but it’s still very much verboten in any other context. A prominent member of the Black Lives Matter movement is a white man who defines himself as black but refuses to wear any coloring cream. Oh, sorry,
#BlackLivesMatter is a movement founded on the assumption that a guy had his hands up who didn’t, a man was choked to death who wasn’t, and a kid wasn’t attacking a man when he was. It’s funded by a Jewish billionaire whose agenda seems to be nothing more than wreaking havoc. Though gun violence is almost exclusively a black thing, it is portrayed as a white thing. If there’s a mass shooting, the shooter is a white supremacist until he’s black and then he’s a gun nut. Inanimate objects are now blamed for violence.

Though race is a social construct, it’s difficult to find something that isn’t racist. Neighborhoods are racist. The president is trying to force affluent white communities such as Connecticut to take in lots of poor blacks from the projects even though that area houses many middle-class blacks who moved there to get away from the projects. Everything Southern is racist. Lady Antebellum are one of the most popular musical groups in the country but using the word antebellum (which just means “pre–Civil War”) will likely get your company shut down. We are currently digging up the bones of anyone considered too antebellum. There’s also a motion to erase a gigantic statue called Stone Mountain, an act formerly considered a type of terrorism.

Abroad, things are much more confusing. We are at war with a nebulous enemy loosely defined as extremist Islam. They’re kind of like the Nazis in WWII and the moderate Muslims are kind of like Germans who didn’t support the Nazis. You may remember the internment camps we subjected German Americans to in the ’30s and ’40s. Today, we bend over backwards for Muslim Americans and if one of them brings a fake bomb to school, the president will tell him it’s “Cool.” Muslim kids wear NASA shirts now because NASA is no longer about the guys who sent you the signal. It’s about Muslim pride. I know, it’s weird.

Speaking of queer, gays are out of the closet. A few years ago, our current president and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton were against gay marriage but today that will get you fired. The entire Catholic Church has been deemed immoral because they refuse to change the traditions they’ve been following for thousands of years and it’s against the law not to have homosexual weddings in your living room. It’s also racist if you don’t want to have sex with them.

However, if you force yourself to have sex with them, it might be rape. This crime is no longer restricted to the law. Like the medical community, the police are considered old-fashioned and the judicial process is now left to academics. A lot of things are rape nowadays. Farting is rape. Giving birth is rape. Drunk sex is rape. Looking like a rapist is rape. Sex you regret later is rape. Actually, I think all sex might be rape. It gets really complicated because sometimes hoaxes end up becoming real movements. By virtually every metric you can measure (including rape) men have it worse than women, but American sexism has never been a more pressing issue. In the non-Western world they mutilate girls’ genitals and stone them to death for being raped. Gays are thrown off buildings. Christians are crucified. There are about a dozen honor killings a day but the United Nations is focused on feminist bloggers who get insulted by white men online (a metric where men also get it worse).

To discuss any of this is a thought crime. America has all but abandoned the First Amendment. Saying the wrong thing, whether intended or not, will destroy a man’s vocation. At universities things are much worse. There is no need to punish students for violating speech codes because such a thing can’t happen. In today’s learning institutions, you may only debate censorship if you’re there to defend it. Opposing views are not allowed on campus at any Western universities.

I apologize if all this sounds confusing. That’s what happens when you erase thousands of years of tradition with nothing left to replace it. You are visiting us during an era of propaganda and sabotage as was predicted in the attached book, The Death of the West. They claim it’s about equality but the movement is so anti-truth, we don’t know if that’s true. Many assume these saboteurs are just jealous ingrates who want all the benefits of the system without any of the hard work but we cannot yet verify this. If you are getting this message much later than 2015, you are likely entering what used to be called the Third World but is now just the world. Judging by the countries that have successfully ousted the white male patriarchy, this is likely not a place you’ll want to visit. You’ll be tempted to use our people as a food source as we presently do with our inferior species. Please don’t. It’s unethical, and right and wrong used to mean something to us. If you are teaching your Martian children about our planet, please focus on pre-20th-century America.

Thank you and God bless,

The USA


NOTE TO NASA: Please keep updating this document as more things that are untrue become accepted as facts.